1 00:11:24,020 --> 00:11:24,440 Morning, Paul. 2 00:11:33,280 --> 00:11:40,680 Yeah, we got the interesting little symbol on our logo here, but I'm not sure what that means. 3 00:11:43,200 --> 00:12:00,180 Morning, director. Yeah, I applaud. I'm not sure why the logo is there, but. No problem. I mean, yeah, I do see the record symbol up there. So I think we're good. If we have parties, we can go ahead. Yeah, both of them at it. Mom, thanks. 4 00:12:01,860 --> 00:12:04,340 I was worried my video was going to work here. 5 00:12:17,460 --> 00:12:18,000 Morning, Mr. Tanner. 6 00:12:18,100 --> 00:12:18,720 Can you hear me okay? 7 00:12:19,420 --> 00:12:19,600 Yes. 8 00:12:19,820 --> 00:12:20,220 Good morning. 9 00:12:20,900 --> 00:12:21,160 Great. 10 00:12:21,500 --> 00:12:21,980 Have you? 11 00:12:24,020 --> 00:12:26,300 And Mr. Winchester, can you hear me all right? 12 00:12:26,700 --> 00:12:27,060 I can. 13 00:12:27,220 --> 00:12:27,920 Can you hear us? 14 00:12:28,320 --> 00:12:28,580 Yeah. 15 00:12:28,700 --> 00:12:29,300 We're all set. 16 00:12:29,560 --> 00:12:29,720 Great. 17 00:12:29,900 --> 00:12:30,760 Thank you very much. 18 00:12:31,120 --> 00:12:33,400 Welcome to the government records office hearings this morning. 19 00:12:33,560 --> 00:12:34,360 I'm Director Pearson. 20 00:12:34,700 --> 00:12:39,500 Looks like we have our first item on the agenda today is appeal number. 21 00:12:39,500 --> 00:12:40,980 and I think we're taking them in this order. 22 00:12:41,100 --> 00:12:45,620 Appeal number 2026-156, Tanner versus Syracuse PD. 23 00:12:46,400 --> 00:12:48,500 You know, Miss Tanner representing herself, 24 00:12:48,900 --> 00:12:52,360 and Mr. Winchester, are you representing Syracuse PD? 25 00:12:53,140 --> 00:12:54,900 I am. I'm the Syracuse City Attorney, 26 00:12:55,100 --> 00:12:57,180 and I have here with me Angie Paul 27 00:12:57,180 --> 00:12:59,000 from the Records Department of the PD. 28 00:12:59,720 --> 00:13:04,120 Okay, great. We're also expecting that we might be joined 29 00:13:04,120 --> 00:13:07,840 by Cassie Brown, who is the Syracuse City recorder. 30 00:13:08,280 --> 00:13:12,220 she'll be joining from home if she joins it all. I'm surprised I'm not to see her yet. 31 00:13:13,320 --> 00:13:19,220 Okay, do you want to just wait and see if we need to swear any witnesses in as we go or do we 32 00:13:19,220 --> 00:13:24,880 want to handle that now? We can do it now and I just see Cassie has just joined us. Okay, great. 33 00:13:25,000 --> 00:13:29,620 Yeah, let's get Ms. Brown on. If you can hear me, if you can turn on your camera and your 34 00:13:30,500 --> 00:13:30,900 microphone. 35 00:13:33,480 --> 00:13:38,700 Yeah, can you hear me? Yep, we've got you. Thank you very much. Okay, we were just about 36 00:13:38,700 --> 00:13:44,680 to swear in non-attorneys. So do you swear that the testimony you will given this matter 37 00:13:44,680 --> 00:13:48,260 will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties 38 00:13:48,260 --> 00:13:56,760 of perjury, Ms. Tanner. I do. Ms. Brown? Yes, I do. And I'm sorry, your other witness. 39 00:13:57,600 --> 00:14:05,700 As you call, P-O-L-L. Okay, Ms. Paul? I do, yes. Okay, great. So as far as how we operate, 40 00:14:06,680 --> 00:14:10,940 Each party will have up to five minutes for an initial presentation, you'll have an additional 41 00:14:10,940 --> 00:14:15,540 five minutes for rebuttal and conclusion. That's an addition to any question time we may have. 42 00:14:18,400 --> 00:14:22,860 Reminder about mediation communications, no mention of anything that might have occurred related 43 00:14:22,860 --> 00:14:29,180 to mediation, as that is privileged from disclosure here. And am I missing anything? It's been a 44 00:14:29,180 --> 00:14:34,620 couple of weeks since I've had hearings, so I'm out of the group. So if there are no questions, 45 00:14:34,620 --> 00:14:36,340 We'll go ahead and turn it to Ms. Tanner. 46 00:14:36,540 --> 00:14:37,820 You have up to five minutes. 47 00:14:38,000 --> 00:14:39,380 We do have the little traffic light 48 00:14:39,380 --> 00:14:41,040 to help us keep track of time as well. 49 00:14:42,280 --> 00:14:44,540 Perfect, I'll, I think I'll be under five minutes. 50 00:14:44,660 --> 00:14:45,780 We'll keep it pretty concise. 51 00:14:46,320 --> 00:14:47,760 There's kind of two main issues 52 00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:50,740 that I want to raise, essentially, with this. 53 00:14:51,180 --> 00:14:53,280 So what I'm looking for is a police report 54 00:14:53,280 --> 00:14:54,840 filed by a mother and a daughter 55 00:14:54,840 --> 00:14:56,660 who were concerned about a situation 56 00:14:56,660 --> 00:14:58,100 that was happening at their high school 57 00:14:58,880 --> 00:14:59,960 with some revenge. 58 00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:28,880 Formed by mail students. The two issues that kind of stand out to me under Utah Code 86, 1000, 4.1. Which gets us a little bit out of the grammar code, but it's the expungement statute. And specifically about expungement for juvenile cases and it says that the victim in the case is required to be served within notice of the have an opportunity to petition the expungement that never happened in this case. 59 00:15:28,880 --> 00:15:33,940 So I feel like we're citing this expungement code as a reason not to release these records. 60 00:15:34,220 --> 00:15:37,480 The actual expungement code itself also doesn't appear to be followed. 61 00:15:37,980 --> 00:15:41,500 I talked to Rachel and Kate Davies, the mother and daughter in this case. 62 00:15:41,500 --> 00:15:43,460 They say they were never served with any kind of notice. 63 00:15:43,600 --> 00:15:47,160 They never had any chance to appeal the expungement to petition it. 64 00:15:47,940 --> 00:15:50,940 And so the code itself wasn't exactly followed with that. 65 00:15:51,100 --> 00:15:52,700 So they never actually had a chance to do that. 66 00:15:53,400 --> 00:15:56,740 And then the second part of code that I want to point out to, 67 00:15:56,740 --> 00:16:03,620 I will say expungement code is as little different than grandma code and that it like sites a code sites a code sites code sites code 68 00:16:03,620 --> 00:16:06,300 So you got to like cut off all the trail, but once you follow the trail 69 00:16:07,080 --> 00:16:08,980 There's a part on Utah code 77 70 00:16:10,400 --> 00:16:10,880 40A 71 00:16:11,640 --> 00:16:18,020 404 that says when expunge records are specifically authorized to be released and it says the following 72 00:16:18,020 --> 00:16:23,060 Individuals may view or obtain an expunge record under this chapter or section 73 00:16:23,060 --> 00:16:25,840 in 77, 27, 5.1. 74 00:16:26,020 --> 00:16:27,980 Again, lots of references in this particle, 75 00:16:28,200 --> 00:16:31,020 but it says the petitioner or an individual 76 00:16:31,020 --> 00:16:34,060 who receives an automatic X-100 under the X-100 law. 77 00:16:34,700 --> 00:16:36,260 So in this case, it's my understanding 78 00:16:36,260 --> 00:16:38,780 that Kate Davies and Rachel Davies, the mother and daughter, 79 00:16:38,780 --> 00:16:40,120 are the petitioner in this case. 80 00:16:40,280 --> 00:16:43,380 They are the people who filed the police report 81 00:16:43,380 --> 00:16:45,720 and they have a right to see what's in their police report 82 00:16:45,720 --> 00:16:48,060 that they personally filed with the police. 83 00:16:49,560 --> 00:16:52,060 They tried to go in person to the CRQ's police station 84 00:16:52,060 --> 00:16:57,100 and were denied. Obviously, I have their notarized forms, which is the same as them requesting 85 00:16:57,100 --> 00:17:05,960 the records. So, I do believe that those should be released. I will say also that Mayor 86 00:17:06,660 --> 00:17:14,960 Maughan, I hope I'm pronouncing that right, noted in his denial, the expunge records may 87 00:17:14,960 --> 00:17:20,040 be released to the individual who is the subject of the record. Again, Kate Davies is the 88 00:17:20,040 --> 00:17:26,480 on the daughter who, you know, filed the report and is essentially the subject of the record. 89 00:17:26,840 --> 00:17:32,420 So it's those kind of two specific pieces of the law that I'd like to note here that 90 00:17:34,480 --> 00:17:41,460 the requirements for notification didn't happen and then that K-TV is the subject of the record 91 00:17:41,460 --> 00:17:48,900 should be able to access her police report. Okay, thank you. All right, we'll turn to you, Mr. Winchester. 92 00:17:48,900 --> 00:17:49,940 You have up to five minutes. 93 00:17:50,300 --> 00:17:50,820 Sure. 94 00:17:51,000 --> 00:17:56,420 I'll address each of those concerns in order regarding the fact or the allegation rather 95 00:17:57,060 --> 00:18:02,040 that they did not receive notice of the petition or expungement. 96 00:18:02,060 --> 00:18:04,320 That's not Syracuse Police Department's problem. 97 00:18:04,860 --> 00:18:08,480 We received an order saying the records had been expunge by the juvenile court. 98 00:18:08,980 --> 00:18:13,580 If Ms. Tanner wants to challenge the expungement process, she needs to go challenge that in the 99 00:18:13,580 --> 00:18:18,040 courts with the juvenile court, or the court of appeals or wherever, but not here. 100 00:18:18,040 --> 00:18:20,960 We did have nothing to do with the process. 101 00:18:21,220 --> 00:18:22,860 All we did was receive the court order 102 00:18:22,860 --> 00:18:24,760 and we followed it and explained to the records. 103 00:18:25,820 --> 00:18:30,120 Number two, she claims that her parties 104 00:18:30,120 --> 00:18:31,640 and just are the petitioners, 105 00:18:31,640 --> 00:18:33,760 and therefore they're entitled to a copy of the report. 106 00:18:34,300 --> 00:18:35,880 When it talks about petitioner 107 00:18:35,880 --> 00:18:37,120 and the expungement statute, 108 00:18:37,120 --> 00:18:39,480 it's talking about the person who petitions 109 00:18:39,480 --> 00:18:40,540 for an expungement. 110 00:18:41,000 --> 00:18:44,300 It is not talking about the petitioner in a grandma request 111 00:18:44,300 --> 00:18:46,040 that happens a year and a half later. 112 00:18:46,040 --> 00:18:48,220 I have already pointed that out of my written response. 113 00:18:49,080 --> 00:18:54,680 And finally, she said that Kate Davies is the subject of the record, Kate Davies, or 114 00:18:54,680 --> 00:18:56,540 her daughter, or not the subject of the record. 115 00:18:56,760 --> 00:19:02,000 The subject of the record, the subject of the, of the, of the, um, expunge records is the 116 00:19:02,000 --> 00:19:04,960 juvenile, not the persons that she's representing. 117 00:19:05,660 --> 00:19:07,700 Our position is we've got a court order. 118 00:19:07,860 --> 00:19:12,100 It said, expunge the records, statute says when the records are expunge, they are treated 119 00:19:12,100 --> 00:19:16,360 as they know long, as if they no longer exist, we've complied with the court order, 120 00:19:16,660 --> 00:19:19,480 we cannot and will not produce the records to Ms. Tanner. 121 00:19:22,090 --> 00:19:24,610 Okay, thank you. I guess we'll go back 122 00:19:24,610 --> 00:19:32,170 to you, Ms. Tanner. Yeah, I mean, I don't agree that the petitioner is not KTVs and Rachel, 123 00:19:32,370 --> 00:19:37,050 the law says the petitioner or the individual who receives the automatic expendment. So it's 124 00:19:37,050 --> 00:19:42,190 creating a difference between those two, the petitioner or the individual who receives, 125 00:19:42,190 --> 00:19:46,790 like those are two different things that OR is is delineating that those are two different parties. 126 00:19:47,890 --> 00:19:52,050 So I guess that's kind of my rebuttal. This is a pretty tight. 127 00:19:54,840 --> 00:19:58,660 Oh, it looks like you've muted, but I mean wouldn't you agree though that if the 128 00:19:58,660 --> 00:20:01,860 expungement order applies, I don't have authority to overrule it. 129 00:20:02,400 --> 00:20:06,320 Even if there were some improprieties or, you know, the statute wasn't followed 130 00:20:07,220 --> 00:20:12,660 exactly. Well, it says that there are those cases where those who are specifically authorized 131 00:20:12,660 --> 00:20:19,380 to receive the records, and it's that petitioner who asks for the records, who's the subject of the records? 132 00:20:19,780 --> 00:20:26,360 All of them, I haven't dug into this statute extensively. It does seem to me that a petitioner in an 133 00:20:26,360 --> 00:20:32,340 expungement matter would be the person seeking an expungement or their representative, but 134 00:20:32,340 --> 00:20:39,320 is petitioner not defined under the juvenile records expungement statute? Mr. Winchester, is that? 135 00:20:39,320 --> 00:20:46,280 But I don't know that it is, I have not researched it, but at this point, I don't know the 136 00:20:46,280 --> 00:20:46,540 answer. 137 00:20:47,280 --> 00:20:51,780 In my understanding, no, and again, it says the petitioner or the individual who receives 138 00:20:51,780 --> 00:20:52,800 the expungement. 139 00:20:53,100 --> 00:20:54,600 So, again, I think those are two different things. 140 00:20:56,160 --> 00:20:58,060 Mr. Winchester, what's your response to that? 141 00:20:58,200 --> 00:21:00,920 Why would they distinguish those if it's the same person? 142 00:21:01,560 --> 00:21:07,740 Is there common to have a request for an expungement by someone that's not the person seeking 143 00:21:07,740 --> 00:21:13,600 the expungement. You would have to direct that question to the courts. I don't know what's 144 00:21:13,600 --> 00:21:18,040 common with their expungement processes. The one that comes to mind is that there are a couple 145 00:21:18,040 --> 00:21:24,920 of public interest firms and law firms that specialize in expungements. They do those expungements 146 00:21:24,920 --> 00:21:30,200 on behalf of people who are the subjects of those records. So I don't know why they use two terms 147 00:21:30,200 --> 00:21:38,900 instead of one. Well I just yeah I just clicked on 80-6-1,001 and 5 is defines 148 00:21:38,900 --> 00:21:43,700 petitioner means an individual requesting an expungement or vacate your 149 00:21:43,700 --> 00:21:49,580 under this part so I think that resolves that dispute as far as who the 150 00:21:49,580 --> 00:21:56,940 petitioner referenced that has access to the records is. Any other arguments 151 00:21:56,940 --> 00:22:02,180 Once all that, you have a last word, Ms. Tanner, there's anything else you want to add? 152 00:22:03,700 --> 00:22:04,100 Okay. 153 00:22:04,660 --> 00:22:10,920 I think it's pretty clear from the language of this statute that the petitioner is, 154 00:22:11,060 --> 00:22:15,440 the person seeking the expungement, it doesn't really authorize, release to someone else besides 155 00:22:15,440 --> 00:22:15,840 that. 156 00:22:16,040 --> 00:22:19,720 I think the city properly interpreted this statute. 157 00:22:20,200 --> 00:22:25,480 I do not have authority to overrule that expungement order. 158 00:22:25,480 --> 00:22:30,520 or even if there were some procedural deficiencies 159 00:22:30,520 --> 00:22:32,600 that may have occurred, I'm not saying there were, 160 00:22:32,860 --> 00:22:34,580 but regardless of whether there were or not, 161 00:22:34,800 --> 00:22:36,040 I wouldn't have authority to do that. 162 00:22:36,780 --> 00:22:38,680 So I find that the records are subject 163 00:22:38,680 --> 00:22:40,280 to a valid expungement order. 164 00:22:41,600 --> 00:22:43,240 I do not have authority to vacate it. 165 00:22:43,660 --> 00:22:47,280 The requester here is not the petitioner 166 00:22:47,740 --> 00:22:49,960 as referenced in the expungement statute. 167 00:22:50,660 --> 00:22:52,400 So I'm going to deny this appeal. 168 00:22:52,560 --> 00:22:54,800 I'll issue a written decision within seven business days 169 00:22:54,800 --> 00:22:58,440 and you're going to appeal to District Court within 30 calendar days if you choose Miss 170 00:22:58,440 --> 00:22:58,620 Tanner. 171 00:23:00,240 --> 00:23:03,120 All right, I think that resolves this appeal. 172 00:23:04,580 --> 00:23:08,320 Thank you for your time today, Mr. Winchester and others. 173 00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:09,380 Thank you. 174 00:23:18,390 --> 00:23:22,950 Yay, I'm keeping Miss Tanner here and get Davis County on. 175 00:23:31,420 --> 00:23:32,140 Hello, can you hear me? 176 00:23:32,740 --> 00:23:34,020 Yep, I can, thank you. 177 00:23:35,060 --> 00:23:39,180 Do you have any witnesses or anyone else that we need to wait for, or are we all set? 178 00:23:39,180 --> 00:23:44,800 that. It was just being myself. Great. Great. All right. Thank you. All right. So our next 179 00:23:44,800 --> 00:23:51,400 appeal is appeal number 2026-148. It's Tana versus Davis County. Again, we have Ms. Tana 180 00:23:51,400 --> 00:23:58,300 representing herself. And we have Mr. James representing Davis County. You may have heard, 181 00:23:58,320 --> 00:24:03,400 but each party has up to five minutes for an initial presentation. And then you'll have initial 182 00:24:03,400 --> 00:24:08,420 five minutes for rebuttal and conclusion. Ms. Tana, I'll just say you are still under oath. So I 183 00:24:08,420 --> 00:24:09,340 I won't swear you again. 184 00:24:10,140 --> 00:24:11,420 And I will give the standard reminder, 185 00:24:11,580 --> 00:24:13,740 no mention of anything related to mediation. 186 00:24:14,880 --> 00:24:16,760 So with that, we'll turn it to Ms. Tanner, 187 00:24:16,760 --> 00:24:17,540 you have up to five minutes. 188 00:24:18,980 --> 00:24:21,400 I will admit, I don't know that we need to hear this case 189 00:24:21,400 --> 00:24:23,200 based on the ruling in the last case. 190 00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:25,540 That's why I was wondering what, you know, 191 00:24:25,620 --> 00:24:30,360 if the order mattered, but I guess there was a question 192 00:24:30,360 --> 00:24:31,580 whether I used to raise the question, 193 00:24:31,740 --> 00:24:35,940 whether Davis kind of a subject to that expungement order. 194 00:24:36,100 --> 00:24:37,260 And I don't know if that's an issue 195 00:24:37,260 --> 00:24:38,680 that we need to delve into or not. 196 00:24:42,660 --> 00:24:44,560 It's an automatic expunge in an order 197 00:24:44,560 --> 00:24:47,260 that's generated by the court and the juvenile case. 198 00:24:47,600 --> 00:24:49,960 And then, I mean, by my reading of it, 199 00:24:50,020 --> 00:24:52,640 which they did provide it for me for a camera review, 200 00:24:53,300 --> 00:24:56,860 it's directed at the court. 201 00:24:57,460 --> 00:24:59,420 So the court record gets expunged. 202 00:24:59,420 --> 00:25:00,840 But I don't know how it's handled outside of that. 203 00:25:00,940 --> 00:25:02,840 Maybe Mr. James, if you want to just address that. 204 00:25:05,220 --> 00:25:07,220 Oh, yeah, as far as the expungement goes, 205 00:25:07,540 --> 00:25:10,060 I guess we're in maybe a somewhat different posture 206 00:25:10,060 --> 00:25:15,260 than Syracuse City in the sense that we conducted what we would consider a reasonable search 207 00:25:15,260 --> 00:25:20,440 and did not find any records, but based off of the request we did not search our expunge 208 00:25:20,440 --> 00:25:25,480 records. So I think if there was going to be something different about ours, it would 209 00:25:25,480 --> 00:25:29,160 maybe be an order to go back and search our expunge records, and then I think we would 210 00:25:29,160 --> 00:25:34,780 be at the exact same place as Syracuse City. That would be my guess. I have purposefully 211 00:25:34,780 --> 00:25:38,620 not dug into those yet, and so I don't know if we would have something in our expunge 212 00:25:38,620 --> 00:25:57,580 that would be responsive, but I kind of to what was discussed previously, I think if we're going to go down the expungement route, it seems to me that would be kind of looking at 63g-2-107 of grandma where we'd be saying that the expungement section of the code is probably what's going to be controlling here. 213 00:25:58,120 --> 00:26:04,940 So I don't know if it's worthwhile for us to conduct an additional search of expunge records, but I think that's kind of where we're at. 214 00:26:04,940 --> 00:26:09,280 So at least that's where as far as the posture for us if that kind of helps clear that up at all. 215 00:26:09,720 --> 00:26:13,740 Well, how does the how's the expungement orders typically handled by the county? 216 00:26:13,980 --> 00:26:17,740 So if the juvenile court issue is one of those automatic expungement orders, 217 00:26:19,080 --> 00:26:24,080 I guess it's directed typically at the police department. 218 00:26:25,900 --> 00:26:30,600 Oh, right. Well, we would we we we we see them as well and we do expunge records. I mean, 219 00:26:30,600 --> 00:26:34,360 And I could go into that process, but yeah, we would have a similar one. 220 00:26:34,400 --> 00:26:37,600 We would have received an order, assuming that we were involved in this. 221 00:26:38,120 --> 00:26:41,860 And then we would have expunged the records, ours are typically, I think, kept in paper 222 00:26:41,860 --> 00:26:42,240 files. 223 00:26:42,240 --> 00:26:46,840 We literally like tape them up and whatever, but yeah, so it would have been a similar process. 224 00:26:47,360 --> 00:26:52,560 For us though, I think we probably would have included that expungement order with our expunged 225 00:26:52,560 --> 00:26:53,460 files basically. 226 00:26:54,460 --> 00:26:59,240 So for me to even get to those records, I basically have to start ripping open files, digging 227 00:26:59,240 --> 00:27:03,820 into them and seeing if they're even responsive and then once I saw they were responsive then 228 00:27:03,820 --> 00:27:09,100 I'd have to say oh yes we did have an expungement order and then we'd kind of be at where Syracuse 229 00:27:09,100 --> 00:27:10,160 City was I think. 230 00:27:11,400 --> 00:27:16,960 Okay well I'm Miss Tanner unless you have any other arguments regarding you know it sounds 231 00:27:16,960 --> 00:27:23,740 like we're kind of all on the same page so again just for the records for the record 232 00:27:23,740 --> 00:27:30,390 I'll say that I do want to put on the record, though. 233 00:27:30,490 --> 00:27:35,210 I think there was an argument, Mr. James, that the no records denial here was not an 234 00:27:35,210 --> 00:27:36,290 appealable access denial. 235 00:27:36,450 --> 00:27:39,610 That is something that I've addressed multiple times before. 236 00:27:39,830 --> 00:27:44,790 I might encourage you to just search up the recent records committee or government records 237 00:27:44,790 --> 00:27:46,470 office decisions on that point. 238 00:27:46,930 --> 00:27:52,250 But I have held repeatedly that no records denial is an access denial that is appealable. 239 00:27:52,250 --> 00:27:58,390 So, to me, or to this district court, so you might want to just pass that along, keep 240 00:27:58,390 --> 00:27:59,030 that in mind. 241 00:27:59,110 --> 00:28:04,570 I'll put that on the record as far as I find a plane that has, you know, not a matter 242 00:28:04,570 --> 00:28:08,830 burden of showing that there are records that aren't expunged that haven't been produced 243 00:28:08,830 --> 00:28:10,530 or that a reasonable search hasn't been conducted. 244 00:28:10,910 --> 00:28:15,910 So, this appeal has also denied all issue written decision within seven business days, and you 245 00:28:15,910 --> 00:28:18,050 can appeal the district court within 30 calendar days. 246 00:28:19,230 --> 00:28:24,270 That, I think that's it for these hearings. Thank you, Ms. Tanner. Have a good day. 247 00:28:25,470 --> 00:28:27,110 Mr. James. Thank you. 248 00:28:33,380 --> 00:28:38,620 I expected it would be a fairly short morning, Paul, but we're really moving long. So I don't 249 00:28:38,620 --> 00:28:42,340 know if we have, do we have parties for the last one? 250 00:28:43,500 --> 00:28:46,580 That makes it easier. But we don't have the respondent. 251 00:28:47,420 --> 00:28:51,900 Okay. So let's take a five minute break and we'll see if we can, we can get them. 252 00:28:51,900 --> 00:28:53,900 and then we'll come back. 253 00:28:54,300 --> 00:28:54,900 Okay. 254 00:28:55,280 --> 00:28:55,700 Alright, great. 255 00:50:58,580 --> 00:51:05,740 Okay. I believe we have the parties for our final hearing today. We'll go ahead and add them as presenters. 256 00:51:18,230 --> 00:51:19,750 Morning, Mr. Savalk. Can you hear me? Okay. 257 00:51:22,090 --> 00:51:40,790 I'm not hearing you. I think maybe you're muted. How about that? Does that work? That's it. Great. Thank you very much. I'm allergies for the mistake today. I thought with four matters in front of us, we would have a little more time. So yeah, we had a few drop out and then things went very quickly. 258 00:51:40,790 --> 00:51:45,390 So no problem at all. Thank you for jumping on as soon as we heard about it. 259 00:51:45,830 --> 00:51:49,390 And it looks like we have the petitioner. Is it Ms. Vigil? Can you hear me okay? 260 00:51:49,870 --> 00:51:51,570 Yes. Can you hear me okay? 261 00:51:52,110 --> 00:51:55,130 Yep. We're all set. All right. So we are on the record. 262 00:51:55,250 --> 00:52:00,850 This is appeal number 2026-146. It's Vigil versus Unified Police Department. 263 00:52:01,650 --> 00:52:05,670 We have Ms. Vigil representing herself as petitioner and Mr. Saval representing 264 00:52:06,330 --> 00:52:07,590 Unified Police Department. 265 00:52:08,470 --> 00:52:12,530 Ms. Vigil, I do need to swear you in as a witness to you swear that the testimony you 266 00:52:12,530 --> 00:52:15,730 will give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth 267 00:52:15,730 --> 00:52:17,510 under the pains and penalties of perjury. 268 00:52:18,170 --> 00:52:18,490 Thank you. 269 00:52:19,070 --> 00:52:19,430 Okay. 270 00:52:19,610 --> 00:52:20,330 Thank you very much. 271 00:52:20,510 --> 00:52:24,770 As far as how we operate each party, we'll have up to five minutes for an initial presentation 272 00:52:24,770 --> 00:52:29,230 and then I may have questions and you'll have an additional five minutes for a rebuttal 273 00:52:29,230 --> 00:52:29,870 and conclusion. 274 00:52:31,010 --> 00:52:36,250 I will mention that anything related to mediation that may or may not have occurred in relation 275 00:52:36,250 --> 00:52:39,630 to this should not be brought up here as that's privileged from disclosure. 276 00:52:40,770 --> 00:52:45,290 If there are no questions, we do have the little traffic light there that you can see 277 00:52:45,290 --> 00:52:48,610 the green light will help you know when your time is almost expired. 278 00:52:48,890 --> 00:52:49,750 So Ms. Vigil, go right ahead. 279 00:52:49,750 --> 00:52:50,810 You have up to five minutes. 280 00:52:51,970 --> 00:52:54,750 Director, if I could ask just one question. 281 00:52:54,750 --> 00:53:00,270 I'm going to be having Terry Rigby who is now the case officer joining us. 282 00:53:00,490 --> 00:53:08,390 She needed a few minutes to get prepared, but that she'll be signing on and she'll be my witness. 283 00:53:09,190 --> 00:53:13,550 Okay, do you need me to wait or before we start with Ms. Vigil? 284 00:53:13,710 --> 00:53:13,870 Okay. 285 00:53:14,270 --> 00:53:17,410 No, I think we can get going now. I've made you wait enough. 286 00:53:17,930 --> 00:53:20,410 No problem. All right, thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Vigil. 287 00:53:21,250 --> 00:53:29,670 Okay. My name, as you know, is Tina Vigil. I'm the practitioner in this appeal. I am also the mother of Dominic Vigil. 288 00:53:29,910 --> 00:53:40,250 He is the subject of this case and the records request from the unified police department relating to his death on July 21st, 2023. 289 00:53:41,410 --> 00:53:46,950 This is very difficult for me to talk about without getting emotional. 290 00:53:48,150 --> 00:53:54,450 So I've asked my sister to, she's here with me to help me stay organized. 291 00:53:56,330 --> 00:54:04,050 I realized that my initial request was quite broad and I have narrowed the request down for specific records 292 00:54:04,050 --> 00:54:11,630 to help resolve this beautiful disputed factual issues in this related civil litigation. 293 00:54:12,870 --> 00:54:23,950 These records have been classified as protected records under grandma and I understand that under Utah code 294 00:54:23,950 --> 00:54:42,250 6, 3G, 2, 406, I have the burden of demonstrating the public interest favoring access is equal to or greater than the interest favoring restriction of access. 295 00:54:42,250 --> 00:54:59,570 I believe the burden has been met, the requested records containing objective evidence concerning a fatal shooting and the resulting law enforcement investigation. 296 00:55:00,370 --> 00:55:08,570 The issue before the committee is whether continued withholding these specific records serves the greater public interest. 297 00:55:09,850 --> 00:55:18,590 The incident occurred July 21, 2023. Following the incident evidence of the records were collected 298 00:55:18,590 --> 00:55:25,850 for review by the District Attorney's Office to determine whether prosecution would be pursued. 299 00:55:26,790 --> 00:55:35,730 On February 14, just 2024, during an in-person interview, I recorded with Deputy District Attorney 300 00:55:36,910 --> 00:55:43,650 Vince Meister informed me that no charges would be filed and the matter had been deemed 301 00:55:43,650 --> 00:55:44,630 self-defense. 302 00:55:45,550 --> 00:55:51,010 The person involved in the shooting was released from custody and it has been now more 303 00:55:51,010 --> 00:55:53,930 than three years since the incident occurred. 304 00:55:54,810 --> 00:55:59,770 I have the recording if you guys would like to hear it or have it entered in. 305 00:56:01,850 --> 00:56:05,950 I would like it entered in if that's possible. 306 00:56:07,230 --> 00:56:10,050 Well, we don't have formal evidentiary procedures here. 307 00:56:10,150 --> 00:56:13,890 You're welcome to submit, you know, anything for consideration that you would like. 308 00:56:14,090 --> 00:56:20,470 I would prefer that have been done sooner, but I mean, you know, 309 00:56:21,550 --> 00:56:27,630 I'll hear Mr. Saval's response, but, you know, I take your word for it at this point 310 00:56:27,630 --> 00:56:32,910 What it says, he didn't proceed, Ms. Vigil, go ahead. 311 00:56:33,650 --> 00:56:43,130 Okay. Unified police department has continued to classify these records as protected based upon an ongoing investigation. 312 00:56:44,090 --> 00:56:50,810 I understand the importance of protecting legitimate law enforcement interests. 313 00:56:50,810 --> 00:56:57,950 However, the circumstance of this case requires consideration of whether continued withholding 314 00:56:57,950 --> 00:57:07,090 all the requested records remains justified when there is no prosecution pending or no criminal 315 00:57:07,090 --> 00:57:16,250 charges filed. The records requested include 911 recordings, CAD logs, ballistic reports, 316 00:57:16,250 --> 00:57:24,310 hurts, crime scene, demonstration, firearm, forensic analysis, surveillance videos, interrogation 317 00:57:24,310 --> 00:57:30,070 recordings, and related investigative material. 318 00:57:30,510 --> 00:57:39,070 These records, excuse me, these records are significant because they contain objective 319 00:57:39,070 --> 00:57:47,970 objective evidence that may resolve dispute factual issues that cannot be answered by completing accounts alone. 320 00:57:50,940 --> 00:58:05,780 I have submitted a list of the committee identifying disputed facts in the related civil litigation explaining how the requested evidence may help resolve these disputes. 321 00:58:05,780 --> 00:58:14,520 because my time is limited I would only allow address a few examples. One is 322 00:58:14,520 --> 00:58:19,800 issue with Dominic Vigil's location and actions at the time of the fatal 323 00:58:19,800 --> 00:58:27,440 shock was fired. He accounts differ regarding whether Dominic was reaching 324 00:58:27,440 --> 00:58:31,760 for the firearm or whether he was positioned away from the weapons. 325 00:58:31,760 --> 00:58:45,440 ballistic analysis, crime scene mapping, and firearm forensic analysis may provide objective information regarding the physical circumstances of the shooting. 326 00:58:46,380 --> 00:58:53,600 Another issue concerning, I guess my time is up now. 327 00:58:54,700 --> 00:58:58,180 All of you have minute two if you want to, if you have anything you want to wrap up. 328 00:58:58,580 --> 00:58:58,860 Okay. 329 00:58:59,060 --> 00:59:05,180 The information providing during the 911 call reflected in the CAD report, they are 330 00:59:06,120 --> 00:59:13,300 contemptuous records that created at the time of the incident may clarify that what information 331 00:59:13,300 --> 00:59:19,920 was reported to the dispatch when it was reported and how law enforcement initial response 332 00:59:19,920 --> 00:59:28,800 based on that information. I also want to emphasize that I am willing to accept 333 00:59:28,800 --> 00:59:36,580 regional safeguards regarding these records if there are legitimate privacy 334 00:59:36,580 --> 00:59:42,180 concerns or sensitive information that requires protection. I'm supportive, 335 00:59:42,180 --> 00:59:51,320 appropriate, appropriate redactions in in-camera, I'm sorry I'm a little nervous. In-camera 336 00:59:51,320 --> 00:59:56,560 you, or productive ordering limited, the use of 337 00:59:58,020 --> 00:59:59,360 disemerging of the records. 338 01:00:00,180 --> 01:00:29,140 Okay. Well, thank you very much. And I do want to tell you, Ms. Vigil, my condolences on your loss. And I know this is a very difficult situation for you. I think you've handled it very well. So, so I commend you on that. I do understand, of course, your interest in the records. But my understanding is there is a civil lawsuit. And you had sought records in discovery through that matter. And you were told by the court that you should try grandma instead. Is that correct? 339 01:00:29,140 --> 01:00:32,820 Yes, I have to exhaust all grandma. 340 01:00:34,100 --> 01:00:35,640 Okay, all right. 341 01:00:37,000 --> 01:00:38,660 We'll turn to you, Mr. Saval. 342 01:00:40,020 --> 01:00:41,380 Thank you. 343 01:00:41,380 --> 01:00:41,440 Thank you. 344 01:00:41,680 --> 01:00:45,820 This is, I'll start out by saying this is an absolute tragic case. 345 01:00:46,200 --> 01:00:50,460 And Miss Vigil has an interest in finding these answers. 346 01:00:50,720 --> 01:00:58,420 This isn't a question of ultimately obtaining access to an assuming that charges aren't filed. 347 01:00:58,420 --> 01:01:01,760 but that it's still an active investigation. 348 01:01:02,260 --> 01:01:04,880 So one of the things that make it tough 349 01:01:04,880 --> 01:01:08,460 is that, first of all, Ms. Vigil was in the house 350 01:01:08,460 --> 01:01:11,100 when this shooting happened, but she didn't witness it. 351 01:01:12,080 --> 01:01:14,620 And I don't know if the records would even answer 352 01:01:14,620 --> 01:01:17,260 some of the questions that she's seeking 353 01:01:17,260 --> 01:01:19,620 to have answered in terms of this. 354 01:01:19,780 --> 01:01:21,960 I mean, we don't go through and respond 355 01:01:21,960 --> 01:01:23,860 to interrogatory type questions, 356 01:01:23,860 --> 01:01:26,860 and that's essentially what the new submission was. 357 01:01:26,880 --> 01:01:28,060 Like, where was the body? 358 01:01:28,060 --> 01:01:34,320 Well, that may not be clear other than we can talk about the location of the body at the 359 01:01:34,320 --> 01:01:40,940 time that the officers arrived, and that would be available on body camp. 360 01:01:41,760 --> 01:01:46,580 So I think that in terms of the questions that she's asking, they appear to be sort of 361 01:01:46,580 --> 01:01:51,180 a list of disputed issues that the court in the civil case would like answered. 362 01:01:51,380 --> 01:01:54,980 I'm not sure that that would be answered by disclosure of the record. 363 01:01:54,980 --> 01:02:00,680 some of it may be, but if the body was moved for medical care or other reasons, it's not going 364 01:02:00,680 --> 01:02:06,240 to be perhaps the same answer that she's looking for. Regardless of that, one of the things that 365 01:02:06,240 --> 01:02:16,080 happens in an investigation, and the issue here was not whether the suspect in this case fired the 366 01:02:16,080 --> 01:02:21,640 shots. It's undisputed that she did. The question is whether she was acting in self-defense or not 367 01:02:21,640 --> 01:02:23,620 at the time that she fired the shots. 368 01:02:24,220 --> 01:02:30,700 Originally the case was screened and there was an initial determination that the state could 369 01:02:30,700 --> 01:02:34,320 not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she wasn't acting in self-defense. 370 01:02:34,580 --> 01:02:42,120 However, the prosecutor on this case, Vince Meister, ultimately decided he wanted additional 371 01:02:42,120 --> 01:02:50,340 information and this is everything from medical records of Ms. Perez to there's some information 372 01:02:50,340 --> 01:02:59,200 regarding, you know, surrounding cameras. They wanted some information, I prefer not to go 373 01:02:59,200 --> 01:03:07,340 into to try to determine the intent of this paras at the time of the shooting to see if she had 374 01:03:07,340 --> 01:03:14,840 made perhaps other statements about what was going on. They wanted to establish what the domestic 375 01:03:14,840 --> 01:03:20,020 istic history is between the two of them to see if there was, you know, circumstances 376 01:03:20,020 --> 01:03:21,860 that would indicate prior abuse. 377 01:03:22,240 --> 01:03:24,260 There certainly were prior calls. 378 01:03:24,760 --> 01:03:29,520 So in an effort to try to button this up, it took time. 379 01:03:30,900 --> 01:03:36,780 And ultimately, there's a final request, or at least I think it's a final request, that 380 01:03:36,780 --> 01:03:44,100 UPD believes it can respond to within about 30 to 60 days to the DA and then whatever time 381 01:03:44,100 --> 01:03:50,700 they take to screen that would ultimately make a final determination if they're going to go forward or 382 01:03:50,700 --> 01:03:57,200 not. Disclosing it now is problematic for a couple of reasons. One is simply that it's an ongoing 383 01:03:57,200 --> 01:04:06,860 investigation too. Ms. Vigil is accused of or allegedly was involved in an assault on Perez the 384 01:04:06,860 --> 01:04:13,060 night of the shooting. Now obviously at this point there is not a possibility of charging her with 385 01:04:13,060 --> 01:04:19,460 assault because the statute limitations is wrong but it's not a foregone conclusion that there 386 01:04:19,460 --> 01:04:24,720 wouldn't be some kind of a charge arising out of that if the district attorney believes it can 387 01:04:24,720 --> 01:04:31,940 prove that. So the complication here is simply that the investigation while slow all agree it's not 388 01:04:31,940 --> 01:04:40,700 been a breakneck speed is something that is not quite done. I think it'll be I think you'd be done 389 01:04:40,700 --> 01:04:50,380 by UPD within 30 to 60 days, and however long the DA takes to screen it, and I didn't know about 390 01:04:50,380 --> 01:04:58,580 a call recorded by Vince Meister until just now, or I may have asked him to try to make time to 391 01:04:58,580 --> 01:05:06,380 be here. I know he's a very busy prosecutor, but whenever Kerry really signs on, she can talk about 392 01:05:06,380 --> 01:05:11,980 her communications within and the timeframe that we need. So our request is simply that 393 01:05:11,980 --> 01:05:19,040 this is still premature even though it's you know three years after the fact and I know 394 01:05:19,040 --> 01:05:24,980 that she's got litigation needs for it but under the circumstances we think that the request 395 01:05:24,980 --> 01:05:32,120 for a period of what I put 180 days hopefully would be more like 120 would serve the 396 01:05:32,120 --> 01:05:37,060 the interest of justice served the purpose of the grandma statute in terms of protecting 397 01:05:37,620 --> 01:05:43,640 investigations and would further outline whether or not the DA is going to go forward with 398 01:05:43,640 --> 01:05:44,020 charges. 399 01:05:45,440 --> 01:05:52,220 Okay. Thank you. I don't have the exact timeline before me, but was the decision to reopen 400 01:05:52,220 --> 01:06:02,940 and reinvestigate or to follow-up investigation after the civil lawsuit request was filed 401 01:06:02,940 --> 01:06:05,860 and the request for discovery or this grammar request. 402 01:06:06,080 --> 01:06:08,200 So it's the cause of the decision? 403 01:06:09,040 --> 01:06:10,560 It's an interesting question. 404 01:06:10,720 --> 01:06:13,840 I think Ms. Rigby will have that answer once she signs on. 405 01:06:14,040 --> 01:06:14,920 I don't know it. 406 01:06:14,920 --> 01:06:23,280 And I think that what I know is simply from third hand, it's possible that this did result 407 01:06:23,280 --> 01:06:28,320 in a, and I can kind of explain the process because I know our records process. 408 01:06:28,380 --> 01:06:34,660 If we get a request for a record on a case that has not been closed by a declination letter, 409 01:06:35,280 --> 01:06:38,580 then we consider it an open investigation. 410 01:06:38,800 --> 01:06:44,400 Frequently at that point, our people will contact the prosecutor and say, hey, are you 411 01:06:44,400 --> 01:06:49,480 going to do anything with this or are we going to, because we either need an authorization 412 01:06:49,480 --> 01:06:54,900 to file or a declination so we can close our file at which point the record becomes 413 01:06:54,900 --> 01:07:00,600 public subject to privacy reductions. So I think that it is possible and I can find 414 01:07:00,600 --> 01:07:08,220 out when Kerry gets on, that that was what spurred this essentially to ask additional questions 415 01:07:08,220 --> 01:07:13,880 to try to wrap it up before making a final decision. So yeah, it is possible that I would 416 01:07:13,880 --> 01:07:21,000 say, I would almost say likely that the request for the information and the confirmation on whether it 417 01:07:21,000 --> 01:07:27,160 was declined or not spurred the DA to make some final requests for the following. Okay, thank you. 418 01:07:27,340 --> 01:07:32,680 It looks like we do have Ms. Rigby joining us. If you could turn your camera on and your microphone will 419 01:07:32,680 --> 01:07:39,800 make sure we can see and hear you okay. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. I do need 420 01:07:39,800 --> 01:07:43,860 to go ahead and swear you and you swear Ms. Rigby, the testimony will given this matter 421 01:07:43,860 --> 01:07:46,920 will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties 422 01:07:46,920 --> 01:07:47,540 of perjury. 423 01:07:48,120 --> 01:07:48,840 Yes, I do. 424 01:07:49,360 --> 01:07:50,520 Okay, thank you very much. 425 01:07:50,600 --> 01:07:54,020 Do you have anything to add on how much of Mr. Savai, I think you were on, but anything 426 01:07:54,020 --> 01:07:59,000 to add as far as the timing of this and how that might relate to? 427 01:07:59,200 --> 01:07:59,380 Yes. 428 01:07:59,980 --> 01:08:03,920 So if I could, I don't know, Carrie, when you signed on, so I don't know if you heard the 429 01:08:03,920 --> 01:08:14,040 I did hear yet. That is correct. So I kept reaching out to Vince and I did touch base with him several times when 430 01:08:15,460 --> 01:08:20,760 this would come up in the grandma request or the request for the information would come up. I'd reach out to him again 431 01:08:20,760 --> 01:08:24,940 and see if there was anything else that he wanted us to do and if we could get an update 432 01:08:26,620 --> 01:08:33,080 two-hour declination letter because the one thing that is on there is the declination 433 01:08:33,080 --> 01:08:38,260 letter would have stipulations and we won't close it as long as there's a stipulation. 434 01:08:39,520 --> 01:08:44,640 And so we were asking for, you know, can we close this? Are we okay to close this? Can 435 01:08:44,640 --> 01:08:50,820 we get the additional stipulation? And then that's when we would be asked for additional information 436 01:08:50,820 --> 01:08:54,880 and we would, we would go back and look for whatever it was that 437 01:08:55,760 --> 01:08:59,160 been sort of the other DA's would want us to look at. 438 01:08:59,680 --> 01:09:05,940 So the last time I, we did talk and I was just looking over my notes on that was 439 01:09:05,940 --> 01:09:09,920 would have been the June 9th that I spoke to him and then 440 01:09:10,520 --> 01:09:16,640 again on July 14th was when we were deciding that we should be okay 441 01:09:17,200 --> 01:09:22,320 We just got to get in front of the DA and sit down with them after all this 442 01:09:22,320 --> 01:09:28,300 stuff that we got from the last June 9th thing. The June 9th conversation with 443 01:09:28,300 --> 01:09:34,220 him was all over. I'm sorry looked over and everything and we could sit down 444 01:09:34,220 --> 01:09:39,500 with them and get in front of them to do that. So there hadn't been a formal 445 01:09:39,500 --> 01:09:44,760 declaration letter issued or. There was a formal declaration it just came with 446 01:09:44,760 --> 01:09:50,080 stipulations. So there was a list of things that they wanted us to do. And so when we were asking for a 447 01:09:50,080 --> 01:09:54,960 declination letter that came without stipulations so that it wasn't 448 01:09:55,560 --> 01:10:02,020 you know something that would allow us to actually close our case. That was what we kept asking for. 449 01:10:03,040 --> 01:10:10,980 And we couldn't get that as long as they had us adding things to that list. So looking at more things to do. 450 01:10:10,980 --> 01:10:19,620 So, thank you. I appreciate that. So, Mr. Saval, assuming hypothetically that no charges are filed, 451 01:10:19,960 --> 01:10:26,280 you're anticipating you said 60 to possibly 120 days outside for that final declination letter to 452 01:10:26,280 --> 01:10:31,120 be issued and then in the matter would be closed. What kind of a time frame would we be looking at 453 01:10:31,120 --> 01:10:40,960 for actually disclosing records under grandma to Ms. Vigil? So, I would say this that first of 454 01:10:40,960 --> 01:10:46,200 Do we have now the information the DA requested in the June 9th meeting? 455 01:10:46,900 --> 01:10:47,200 Yes. 456 01:10:48,240 --> 01:10:48,500 Okay. 457 01:10:49,400 --> 01:10:57,120 Then at this point, I believe that it would be without further stipulations or further 458 01:10:57,120 --> 01:11:02,200 requests as soon as the DA can get together with us and review this. 459 01:11:02,440 --> 01:11:09,560 I know he's busy, but it would seem to me that if the DA provides an unconditional declination 460 01:11:09,560 --> 01:11:15,600 and letter. I think that our time period would be approximately 30 days after that. 461 01:11:16,500 --> 01:11:24,800 Okay. Great. That's helpful. As far as the status of the civil suit, Miss Vigil, 462 01:11:25,260 --> 01:11:30,140 are there discovery deadlines? First off, do you have counsel in that matter or are you 463 01:11:30,140 --> 01:11:36,720 planning that process? Okay. And are there discovery deadlines in place or what's the status of 464 01:11:36,720 --> 01:11:37,220 lawsuit. 465 01:11:41,000 --> 01:11:50,300 Discovery is done and I have filed an extension. Okay. I have a hearing with 466 01:11:50,300 --> 01:11:52,160 the judge coming up in September. 467 01:11:54,700 --> 01:11:57,960 I don't know if you're aware or not, Ms. Vigil, but probably the 468 01:11:57,960 --> 01:12:03,740 best way to obtain these records would not be through a grammar process because they are going 469 01:12:03,740 --> 01:12:10,340 to be subject to heavy reduction. There are probably a lot of things that you can't really get 470 01:12:10,340 --> 01:12:14,860 very well through the grammar process that you would be able to obtain most 471 01:12:14,860 --> 01:12:19,480 likely through discovery. So this really isn't the ideal way to go about it in 472 01:12:19,480 --> 01:12:23,540 my mind. I understand if the judge directed you to you know give it a shot but 473 01:12:23,540 --> 01:12:29,100 I'll just throw that out there for you on the record. I'll turn it back to you 474 01:12:29,100 --> 01:12:32,260 Miss Vigil. You have an additional five minutes but again if you would just 475 01:12:32,260 --> 01:12:38,800 focus on the public interest in releasing these records while they are while 476 01:12:38,800 --> 01:12:43,060 they remain protected or private? 477 01:12:47,920 --> 01:12:53,300 Respectfully it is not for the committee to determine the liability of my civil case 478 01:12:53,300 --> 01:13:02,180 or whether this investigation should remain open, but that the committee should consider 479 01:13:02,960 --> 01:13:09,380 partial effect of allowing the investigation to remain the sole basis with holding records 480 01:13:09,380 --> 01:13:17,200 identity indefinitely because certain serious criminal offenses did not have 481 01:13:17,200 --> 01:13:28,150 statute of limitations and investigations could it could remain open for an 482 01:13:28,150 --> 01:13:33,070 ultimate period of time if the existence of the case investigation alone 483 01:13:33,070 --> 01:13:38,530 significantly to permanently prevent access to records the public interest 484 01:13:38,530 --> 01:13:43,450 this balancing required by grandma could be avoided indefinitely. 485 01:13:46,310 --> 01:13:47,510 Okay, thank you very much. 486 01:13:48,050 --> 01:13:49,630 Turn it back to you, Mr. Saval. 487 01:13:49,730 --> 01:13:53,470 Again, I think that probably the strongest public interest argument 488 01:13:53,470 --> 01:13:55,670 is just the amount of time that's gone by here. 489 01:13:55,830 --> 01:13:57,930 I mean, three years and then, you know, 490 01:13:58,030 --> 01:14:00,990 it's reopened when she files a new civil suit. 491 01:14:01,150 --> 01:14:04,810 And that's, you know, that's kind of factors into my weighing analysis, 492 01:14:05,050 --> 01:14:07,330 but I'll let you go ahead and address anything else. 493 01:14:07,330 --> 01:14:15,190 As far as just to address that question, two years ago, UPD separated from the Sheriff's 494 01:14:15,190 --> 01:14:22,790 Office, and 90 plus people, some of whom were working on these type of cases left, requiring 495 01:14:22,790 --> 01:14:26,350 a significant shuffling of work around. 496 01:14:27,030 --> 01:14:32,310 I know that's not Miss Vigil's fault, but there were cases that were picked up by other 497 01:14:32,310 --> 01:14:41,490 detectives and ultimately there has been some slower responses on or follow up on cases 498 01:14:41,490 --> 01:14:48,730 than even we would prefer. Nonetheless, we were sort of on a team with the DA's office 499 01:14:48,730 --> 01:14:56,910 and when we when we tried to see the status of a case and we're still doing a broader review 500 01:14:56,910 --> 01:14:59,730 a lot of our cases to see that the situation 501 01:15:00,000 --> 01:15:06,500 Just like this, are timely followed up on. We still, like I said, don't have a formal 502 01:15:06,500 --> 01:15:13,220 declination letter. We do have a commitment to review the information as quickly as possible 503 01:15:13,220 --> 01:15:19,620 once it's ready. It sounds like it's ready. So what was originally from the DA 180-day 504 01:15:19,620 --> 01:15:26,940 request of time, I put it in my filing, I think 120 is more reasonable. And I think now that 505 01:15:26,940 --> 01:15:28,780 that the information is available, 506 01:15:29,120 --> 01:15:31,180 we'll see if we could get it done sooner. 507 01:15:31,880 --> 01:15:35,580 But I would at least ask for 60 days 508 01:15:35,580 --> 01:15:38,400 to determine if there's a declination letter 509 01:15:38,400 --> 01:15:41,620 and I'll make a request to Mr. Meister, 510 01:15:41,760 --> 01:15:44,580 that he or somebody else in the office schedule a meeting 511 01:15:45,320 --> 01:15:47,340 and make a determination if they can. 512 01:15:47,520 --> 01:15:50,920 And if they don't, I think it could come back 513 01:15:50,920 --> 01:15:52,680 before you for final decision. 514 01:15:52,980 --> 01:15:55,060 If you want to continue this hearing 515 01:15:55,060 --> 01:16:00,520 to make that determination and rather than losing jurisdiction over it. 516 01:16:00,980 --> 01:16:07,800 In the meantime, I'm sympathetic to the fact that the lawsuit is going forward and I would 517 01:16:07,800 --> 01:16:14,420 offer to appear in that action in front of the judge and explain the reasons for the delay 518 01:16:14,420 --> 01:16:16,460 if that would assist. 519 01:16:16,760 --> 01:16:24,560 But regardless, I just think that we're almost to the finish line if they make a determination 520 01:16:24,560 --> 01:16:29,740 to charge, that may benefit Ms. Beheal because they're looking at Ms. Perez. 521 01:16:30,620 --> 01:16:38,760 What question I have for Ms. Vigil is, is Perez represented in that lawsuit by an attorney? 522 01:16:39,360 --> 01:16:39,920 No. 523 01:16:40,580 --> 01:16:40,980 Okay. 524 01:16:41,520 --> 01:16:48,600 So, it's a little bit problematic in two-prose parties, but I still think under the circumstances 525 01:16:48,600 --> 01:16:54,540 is at least that if there is a hearing that I am requested to attend and explain, I can't, 526 01:16:55,020 --> 01:17:01,960 and I will. But in the meantime, I would like to wrap this up in a way that doesn't have this case 527 01:17:01,960 --> 01:17:07,540 going out to the two interested parties before the DAs made a charging decision. 528 01:17:09,570 --> 01:17:14,690 No, that's totally understandable, and I appreciate your, you know, your cooperation here, at least 529 01:17:14,690 --> 01:17:21,090 the representation that you made that maybe this can be sped along. I did have the question 530 01:17:21,090 --> 01:17:26,730 as well whether the Suspects Council was curious, whether it was even aware of this 531 01:17:26,730 --> 01:17:32,510 grammar proceeding and might want to intervene. But I don't think that's really relevant at 532 01:17:32,510 --> 01:17:39,610 this point, given the representations that have been made. I am prepared to issue a ruling 533 01:17:39,610 --> 01:17:44,750 in this matter. While I certainly understand this visual, you're interested in these records 534 01:17:44,750 --> 01:17:52,250 and again I sympathize greatly with your situation. I do think the public interest here favors 535 01:17:52,250 --> 01:17:58,350 allowing additional time for the prosecutors to complete their final screening of this matter. 536 01:17:58,670 --> 01:18:05,210 I don't find any evidence that, you know, this additional effort to screen it or do additional 537 01:18:05,210 --> 01:18:10,750 of follow-up was intended to just deny access or to stall this out indefinitely. 538 01:18:11,810 --> 01:18:15,930 And I do appreciate the representations that have been made that they will try to speed 539 01:18:15,930 --> 01:18:16,810 the process along. 540 01:18:17,370 --> 01:18:23,890 So for those enters, I do find that the records are properly classified as private as protected. 541 01:18:24,090 --> 01:18:31,090 The public interests in disclosure do not equal or outweigh the interest in restriction of 542 01:18:31,090 --> 01:18:32,490 access at this time. 543 01:18:32,490 --> 01:18:34,530 So I'm going to deny this appeal. 544 01:18:35,210 --> 01:18:37,710 I'll issue a written decision within seven business days, 545 01:18:38,090 --> 01:18:42,370 and you can file an appeal to district court within 30 calendar days. 546 01:18:42,570 --> 01:18:45,910 The upside is, of course, that once that 30 days is run, 547 01:18:46,090 --> 01:18:48,850 your administrative remedies as far as the grammar process 548 01:18:48,850 --> 01:18:51,990 goes have been exhausted, and you can certainly report that. 549 01:18:52,450 --> 01:18:54,570 To the court that this process is done. 550 01:18:56,010 --> 01:19:01,390 And there's no, I don't see any barrier to you filing a new grammar request 551 01:19:01,390 --> 01:19:11,530 down the road if for whatever reason, you know, the UPD's statements don't bear out, but we can 552 01:19:11,530 --> 01:19:16,630 address that at that point. Yeah, anything to add, Mr. Seval? I was just going to say, UPD would not 553 01:19:16,630 --> 01:19:23,190 assert that there's some sort of a prior determination governing a new request because the new request may 554 01:19:23,190 --> 01:19:28,530 come in at a time when the records are going to be reclassified. So I just want to- Right. We're not 555 01:19:28,530 --> 01:19:34,690 going to do that. I appreciate that. Will you guys be able to give me the records eventually? 556 01:19:35,610 --> 01:19:40,290 Well, so I will just say this was vigil. I do think still that your best access to obtain 557 01:19:40,290 --> 01:19:45,590 the records is through discovering that suit. Now that you've exhausted this administrative process, 558 01:19:45,590 --> 01:19:52,050 I would encourage you to prefer that. I think that would be much quicker and would conserve resources 559 01:19:52,910 --> 01:19:58,990 by the city as well. I'm not giving you legal advice but I just do think as a practical 560 01:19:58,990 --> 01:20:06,830 matter that might be the way to go. All right thank you again best wishes to you and have 561 01:20:06,830 --> 01:20:08,390 a good day. Thank you. 562 01:20:13,960 --> 01:20:17,240 That is our last hearing so we are adjourned for the day. Thanks everyone.